Kevin Rawluk

The appellant appealed his convictions and global sentence of eight years for sexual offences against three adolescent women.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in admitting the testimony of each complainant as similar fact evidence across counts, specifically regarding the finding that accidental tainting had not occurred.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's analysis, noting that the core allegations differed meaningfully and could not be the product of accidental tainting.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the eight-year global sentence was fit given the breach of trust and vulnerability of the victims.

The appellant appealed his total sentence of 76 months for sexual exploitation, making child pornography, and voyeurism involving a 17-year-old complainant and multiple other victims secretly recorded in his home.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by imposing a consecutive sentence for child pornography, treating elements of the offences as aggravating factors, and providing insufficient credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the overall sentence fit under the totality principle and noting the trial judge's discretionary decisions were entitled to deference.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of a firearm, arguing the trial judge erred by not excluding the firearm evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter after finding a s. 8 breach from a facially invalid search warrant.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's application of the Grant framework, noting the breach was deemed the product of sloppiness rather than bad faith.

The appeal was dismissed, with the court deferring to the trial judge's balancing of the factors.

The appellant, convicted of second degree murder and aggravated assault, applied for bail pending appeal.

The Crown opposed the application on the public interest criterion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the grounds of appeal were weak and did not clearly surpass the not frivolous criterion.

Balancing the weak grounds, serious convictions, and lengthy sentence against the lack of flight risk and public safety concerns, the court concluded that the enforceability interest outweighed the reviewability interest, making detention necessary in the public interest.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a summary conviction appeal judge's decision upholding his conviction for uttering a threat.

The moving party had attempted to enter the wrong apartment while confused and suffering from a broken jaw, and told the complainant 'I'm going to kill you' in broken English.

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal, finding no issues of general importance and no merit to the arguments, as the trial judge's factual findings regarding the threat and mens rea were entitled to deference.

The appellant, a 27-year-old first-time offender, was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for his role in a home invasion involving robbery, unlawful confinement, and discharging a firearm.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the trial judge failed to properly weigh his youth and lack of a criminal record.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge gave careful reasons, considered all mitigating and aggravating factors, and imposed a sentence that was not demonstrably unfit.

The appellant, who was previously found NCRMD, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

At the outset of his review hearing, the appellant objected to being addressed by his legal name and to the constitution of the Board.

The Chair gave the appellant a five-second ultimatum before cutting off his audio and video feed, proceeding with the hearing in his absence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Chair acted precipitously and failed to exercise the judicial patience and restraint required under section 672.5(10)(b)(i) of the Criminal Code before excluding an accused from a hearing.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual offences involving a young person, arguing the trial judge applied different standards of scrutiny to the evidence, misapprehended evidence, and failed to properly apply the W.(D.) test.

The appellant also sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding his pubic hair colour.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility assessments or application of the W.(D.) test.

While the trial judge misapprehended some evidence, it did not play an essential part in the reasoning process.

The fresh evidence application was dismissed for failing to meet the Palmer test.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual offences against his step-daughter arising from long-term abuse allegations spanning childhood to late adolescence.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's credibility findings, arguing improper speculation about the family’s prior housing arrangements and improper rejection of defence evidence from close family members.

The Court of Appeal held that any error concerning the housing-scam comment was peripheral, given the many unchallenged reasons for rejecting the appellant’s evidence.

It further held that the trial judge did not reject the younger siblings’ evidence solely because of relationship, but because the evidence supported a finding that they remained under parental influence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, detained in the forensic mental health system after being found not guilty by reason of insanity, appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering his continued detention.

He argued the ORB erred in finding he posed a significant threat to public safety and in failing to direct the hospital regarding a sleep deprivation issue caused by hourly bed checks.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB's decision was reasonably supported by evidence of the appellant's threatening behaviour and paranoia, and that the ORB's recommendation for an independent third-party opinion on the bed check issue was appropriate.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and was detained at a secure forensic unit.

The Ontario Review Board granted a conditional discharge, concluding the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety despite the hospital's recommendation for an absolute discharge.

The appellant appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board's decision unreasonable as the evidence did not support a finding of significant risk to the public.

An absolute discharge was substituted.

The Crown appealed a 90-day intermittent sentence imposed on the respondent for using an imitation firearm during a bank robbery, arguing it fell below the mandatory minimum of one year under s. 85(3) of the Criminal Code.

The respondent conceded the sentence was illegal.

The Court of Appeal imposed the mandatory minimum sentence of 12 months.

However, considering the respondent's youth, rehabilitation, restitution, and the time already served, the Court permanently stayed the execution of the sentence, declining to re-incarcerate him.

The appellant appealed a conviction on one count of gross indecency following a jury trial involving historic sexual abuse allegations, arguing the verdicts on two counts were inconsistent and that the jury charge inadequately addressed credibility and an asserted motive to fabricate.

The court held the jury instructions were proper, the verdicts were logically reconcilable because the counts related to distinct incidents with differing evidentiary features, and the motive-to-fabricate instruction already captured the possibility of honest mistake.

On sentence, the court found one aspect of the conditional sentence unduly restrictive and varied the house arrest term to permit limited absence from the residence with prior written supervisory consent.

The conviction appeal was dismissed and the sentence appeal was allowed in part.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and criminal harassment, appealed the Ontario Review Board's refusal to grant him an absolute discharge.

The Board had ordered a continuation of his conditional discharge based on psychiatric evidence that he would likely stop taking his anti-psychotic medication and resume substance abuse if absolutely discharged, thereby increasing the risk of violent relapse.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board correctly applied the significant threat test and that its conclusion was reasonably supported by the evidence.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault following an on-ice collision during a recreational no-contact hockey game.

The trial judge rejected the defence's evidence that the collision was accidental, finding instead that it was a deliberate blindside hit.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge engaged in impermissible speculative reasoning by relying on her own personal knowledge of hockey strategy and on-ice injuries to reject the defence witnesses' testimony.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and related offences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed arguments regarding the trial judge's assessment of the complainant's credibility and the lack of a Vetrovec caution.

However, the Court found the trial judge misapprehended evidence on one count, quashing that conviction and ordering a new trial.

Another conviction was quashed and an acquittal entered because the complainant did not meet the statutory definition of a young person.

The remaining convictions and the total five-year sentence were upheld.

The appellant appealed a conviction for sexual assault, arguing the verdict was unreasonable and the trial judge's reasons were insufficient because she acquitted on two other incidents based on unreliability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly explained why the evidence for the third incident was reliable despite concerns about the first two.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearm offences and possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, arguing the verdict was unreasonable and the trial judge erred in her treatment of his lie to police about his identity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility findings and conclusion that guilt was the only reasonable inference were reasonable.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's treatment of the appellant's lie to police, noting it was consistent with other circumstances inferring possession.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that continued his conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's order was reasonable and that the Board did not misapprehend evidence regarding cultural reactions to mental illness or the attitude of the appellant's parents toward his illness.

The appellant pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited weapon, possession of a firearm knowing its possession was unauthorized, and breach of a weapons prohibition.

He was sentenced to six years' imprisonment, less pre-sentence custody.

On appeal, the appellant argued the sentencing judge failed to properly apply the 'jump principle' given his prior global sentence of six and one-half months.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge explicitly considered the jump principle and the sentence was within the appropriate range.